Masterson v. Sine

68 Cal. 2d 222 · California Supreme Court · 1968

Facts

Dallas and Rebecca Masterson conveyed a ranch to Medora and Lu Sine, reserving an option to repurchase. After Dallas's bankruptcy, his trustee and Rebecca sought to enforce the option. The trial court admitted extrinsic evidence to clarify the option's price terms but excluded evidence that the option was personal to the grantors and thus non-assignable.

Issue

Did the trial court err by admitting extrinsic evidence to clarify the option's price terms but excluding extrinsic evidence that the option was intended to be personal and non-assignable, given the parol evidence rule?

Holding

Yes, the trial court properly admitted extrinsic evidence to clarify the option's price terms but erred in excluding extrinsic evidence that the option was personal and non-assignable. The judgment was reversed.

Rule

The parol evidence rule permits extrinsic evidence to explain ambiguous terms in a written contract and to prove a collateral oral agreement if it "might naturally be made as a separate agreement" and is not inconsistent with the writing, even if the writing appears complete on its face. This applies to rebut legal presumptions, such as assignability, where no statute controls.

Read the full opinion on CourtListener

Case brief last reviewed 2026-04-27. Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.